In the executive summary, the authors pose the following:
"An observer would be most likely to conclude that both President Zelaya Rosales and many of the institutions involved in his removal from power acted illegally and unconstitutionally at certain points. Zelaya Rosales most likely acted unconstitutionally when he proposed the Fourth Urn “consultation” or “poll,” and when he pushed forward with that project despite judicial orders to the contrary. At the same time, Zelaya Rosales was probably not removed from office by a legal process. Congress passed a bill purporting to remove Zelaya Rosales from office, but Congress did not appear to have the constitutional power to remove the President. And members of the Armed Forces acted unconstitutionally when they removed Zelaya Rosales from the country"
I think this report requires further study as there is, in my opinion, too much vague language in the conclusions and too many uncertainties, which is of course typical of academic writing. The relevance of the expertise qualifications of the comparative constitutional experts with regard tot he specific case of Honduras constitutional law will certainly need to be assessed. Finally, this legal opinion indeed needs to be examined in light of the historical context, public policy and other actions made by the players in this drama. I want to see what the Truth Commission will say, and then of course evaluate what it says. In the end, there will not be an agreement except on those issues that were clearly illegal in all the events of June 2009.